1 / 26

CoSpace Experimental results on sequencing & merging Karim Zeghal

CoSpace Experimental results on sequencing & merging Karim Zeghal. ASAS Thematic Network, Second workshop 6-8, October 2003, Malmö, Sweden. Introduction. Motivation Increase of controller availability through a better allocation of spacing tasks between air and ground

amandag
Télécharger la présentation

CoSpace Experimental results on sequencing & merging Karim Zeghal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CoSpaceExperimental results on sequencing & mergingKarim Zeghal ASAS Thematic Network, Second workshop 6-8, October 2003, Malmö, Sweden

  2. Introduction • Motivation • Increase of controller availability through a better allocation of spacing tasks between air and ground Neither to “transfer problems” nor to “give more freedom” to pilots! • One option to improve safety, and beyond efficiency and/or capacity • Constraints • Human: consider current roles and working methods • System: keep things as simple as possible • Assumptions • Airborne surveillance capabilities (ADS-B, “state vectors”) • Airborne functions (ASAS, “manual mode”)

  3. Principles • Starting point • Analogy with visual separation clearances … • … but no transfer of separation responsibility • Just new “spacing” instructions • Spacing not separation, instructionnotclearance • To be used with current practices • FAA/Eurocontrol PO-ASAS and ICAO SCRSP ASAS circular “spacing category” • Task distribution • Decision-making on the ground (controller defines strategy) • Execution in the air (pilot implements actions) • Two classes of operations • Crossing and passing en-route • Sequencing in terminal areas

  4. Sequencing of arrival flows • Controller • Defines sequence order • Issues spacing instruction • Pilot • Adjusts speed to acquire and maintain spacing • Not authorised to change trajectory nor altitude WPT spacing AFR123 235  40 DLH456 250  41

  5. INKAK In situation Controller: “AZA324, select target 2443” Pilot: “AZA324, target 2443 identified, 3 o’clock, 30 miles” Controller: “AZA324, behind target merge to INKAK to be 8 miles behind” Controller: “ASAS324, cancel spacing, reduce speed 220 knots”

  6. Real-time simulations Joint EVP CRZ-IAF interface CRZ-IAF activity CRZ-IAF activity/margins Initial ideas IFATCA’98 air ETMA / ER exploratory TMA exploratory ground ETMA / ER activity ETMA monitoring control quality very high traffic ETMA time/distance Joint NUPII 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

  7. Controller E-TMA simulation Joint EVP CRZ-IAF interface CRZ-IAF activity CRZ-IAF activity/margins Initial ideas IFATCA’98 air ETMA / ER exploratory TMA exploratory ground ETMA / ER activity ETMA monitoring control quality very high traffic ETMA time/distance Joint NUPII 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

  8. CLM VAS04 FAO26 KOTUN VAS03 OMAKO AR2 VAS02 INIR AO2 MLNS INKAK INIO IPLAN LUVAL MOLEK EPL TRO VDP DORDI LAULY BOLLY VERIX OKRIX RLP AR2 AO2 RESPO CHABY IXILU OSKIN TINIL REKLA VERDI AR1 PENDU DJL DERAK FE ROMTA RIGNI AO1 BENIP FE LISMO ATN TUROM BAGOL MOU LUSAR GALBI SAUNI ALURA KELUK AMORO GERBI MILPA BUSIL PAS LOGNI LESPI GVA BULOL ROA Experiment setup • Overall • Six controllers during 3 weeks • Dense and “generic” airspace (simplified Paris South-East arrivals) • Four (combined in two) arrivals sectors • All traffic equipped • Use of spacing at controller discretion • No specific tools (paper strips with graphical markings only) • Independent variables • Spacing: without, distance, time • Sector configuration Sequencing constraint: 8Nm at IAF

  9. Controller activity • Natural mapping of the sequencing activity over the geographical sector Sequencing phases: 2- Maintaining 1- Building Types of instruction: Speed Heading Converging point Exit point

  10. Converging High High Number of instructions Without With 25 25 20 20 15 15 Number of instructions 10 10 Distance to exit (Nm) 5 5 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Distance to exit point (Nm) Distance to exit point (Nm) Speed Heading Speed Heading Delegation 25 20 Very high Very high 25 Without With 15 20 Number of instructions 10 15 5 0 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Distribution of instructions (2001)

  11. 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Monitoring • Global level • Reduced amount of time associated to monitoring? • Local level • Aircraft still monitored? Use of eye movement analysis Collaboration with NOVADIS, Grenoble

  12. Eye-tracker data 5 seconds 5 minutes

  13. 25 20 15 Number of instructions 10 5 0 Distribution of eye-fixations High 25 25 High Without With % of fixations 20 20 15 15 Number of instructions 10 10 Distance to exit (Nm) 5 5 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Very High Very High 25 Without With 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

  14. 50 Without - AR 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 50 Distance - AR 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 50 Time - AR Speed 40 Heading Spacing 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Same trend in 2002

  15. Spacing at exit point 100 90 90 80 71 70 59 60 47 45 50 40 30 20 16 20 13 6 10 2 2 1 0 Unacceptable - 5Nm - 60s Small 5 - 7.5Nm 60 - 85s Optimal 7.5 - 8.5Nm 85 - 95s Large 8.5Nm+ 95s+ Without Distance Time

  16. Summary ground E-TMA • Initial understanding of impact on controller activity and effectiveness in E-TMA • Increased availability (instructions, eye-fixations) • More stable flows transferred to the approach Seems to be beneficial when properly used • Issues • Applicability conditions (nothing more than today’s practices): if not respected, use of spacing worse than conventional control • Too much expectation? Risk of disengagement? • Abnormal situations • Applicability to other E-TMA airspace (even AO vs AR) • Applicability (usefulness) in TMA

  17. Controller TMA simulation Joint EVP CRZ-IAF interface CRZ-IAF activity CRZ-IAF activity/margins Initial ideas IFATCA’98 air ETMA / ER exploratory TMA exploratory ground ETMA / ER activity ETMA monitoring control quality very high traffic ETMA time/distance Joint NUPII 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

  18. XERAM LORTA INIR BSN FAG26 LFPG LOR12 VAS04 FAO26 VAS03 LFPO VAS02 OMAKO AO2 VASPO AR2 DESCT INIO INIR INIO MLNS INKAK MOLEK ODRAN OKRIX AR2 AO2 Experiment setup • Objective: assess usability of proposed applications • Setup • Four approach controllers during 9 days • Standard trajectories, merging point, INI+ITM grouped, with EXC and PLC • Two approach sectors • Independent variables: without spacing, distance, time • All traffic equipped • Use of spacing at controller discretion • Traffic coming under spacing • 31 per hour with sequence of up to 5 June’02

  19. Method of use • From same IAF • Kept in “remain” with direct • Use of heading then “merge” (to create spacing) • From different IAF • Use of “merge” • Use of heading then “merge” (to create spacing)

  20. 100 Without spacing - INIO sector 90 80 70 60 Mean number of instructions 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Distance to reference point (Nm) Speed Heading Distribution of instructions (without) • Method of analysis used for E-TMA and translated to TMA

  21. 100 Time based spacing - INIO sector 90 80 70 60 Mean number of instructions 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Distance to reference point (Nm) Speed Heading Spacing Distribution of instructions (with)

  22. Distribution of instructions (all) INIO Without spacing Distance based spacing Time based spacing INIR

  23. Summary ground TMA • Usability • Seem usable in TMA under medium-high traffic • Change in working method (standard trajectories, final integration on a point, unique approach control position) • Impact • Analysis of instructions suggests a positive impact on activity • “Potential for providing more availability” • “Provides but also requires anticipation” • “Allows to smooth traffic but gives the feeling of loosing capacity (less pressure)” • Issues • Cost of cancelling then (re-)initiating spacing • Reluctance to cancel spacing leads to “group” aircraft • Recovery of abnormal situations

  24. Flight deck simulation Joint EVP CRZ-IAF interface CRZ-IAF activity CRZ-IAF activity/margins Initial ideas IFATCA’98 air ETMA / ER exploratory TMA exploratory ground ETMA / ER activity ETMA monitoring control quality very high traffic ETMA time/distance Joint NUPII 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

  25. Summary flight deck • General • Overall positive feedback on concept and interface • Active part (“in the loop”) and understanding of the situation • More anticipation and optimised flight management? • However, a new task with potential risk of workload increase • Managed (automatic) mode helpful • Tolerance vs activity • Tolerance at or above 0.5Nm seems acceptable (under nominal conditions and down to initial approach) • Lower impact of tolerance than anticipated (“keep the bug aligned” culture) • Issues • Down to final approach (June ‘03) • Abnormal situations

  26. Next • Ground (with NUPII Bretigny) • 2003: TMA under very high traffic • 2004: Interaction TMA / E-TMA with AMAN, and uplink for target selection, downlink of spacing parameter • 2005: Extend scope towards assessing impact on ATC • Air (with EVP WP3) • 2004: From cruise to final approach, in varied conditions (long sequences) Full flight simulator (A330 from TuB/ZFB) • 2005: Extend scope towards automatic mode and uplink for target selection

More Related